Do The Google AI Claims Grow Like a Pinocchio Body Part?
April 6, 2022
“Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540 Billion Parameters for Breakthrough Performance” is a variant of the Google quantum supremacy announcement. Bigger, better, faster, more powerful, able to leap problems with a single tap on the Enter key. The graphic in the Google AI Blog post does grow. Didn’t Carlo Collodi cook up a dummy. The chief feature — other than teaching some how not to lie — was that the marketing was handled by Walt Disney. Like IBM’s humorous announcement that a mainframe could defeat a quantum computer’s ability to crack encryption, a claim pointed at something not invented yet is interesting. Are those marketing people at Google and IBM mentally enervated by swigs of Five Hour Energy?
Like a certain fictional character’s nose and the anigif in the blog post, the claims continue to grow.
I looked at this graphic closely. I noted a few omissions; for example:
- A mechanism to report the incidence of outliers or exceptions between the baseline system and the state of the system after iterating over a period of a month
- Any reference to bias identification and amelioration. This is Dr. Timnit Gebru territory, and this landscape is one that Google appears to ignore, at least in public. In private negotiations and legal chambers, maybe the Google addresses the baked in biases? Maybe not?
- Any reference to the handling of images, content, videos that are related to sexual harassment; for instance, allegations about personnel issues at Google and DeepMind themselves?
- Data about the accuracy of the outputs? Are we in 95 percentile territory or close enough for horse shoes and ad matching?
The write up uses a number of buzzwords, some Google jargon, and quite a few links to other Google documents and experts at Microsoft and NVidia. I am convinced. I believe everything I read on the Internet and Google’s blogs.
Three observations:
First, what’s at stake in my opinion is dominance if possible of off the shelf smart methods. Consolidation is the name of the game, and Google wants to beat out Amazon, Microsoft, assorted China backed outfits, and any other challengers who want to go a different direction. Not every company wants to SAIL down a certain flow of methods.
Second, Google is — bless its single revenue stream — embracing Madison Avenue techniques to convince people that it is the Big Dog in smart methods: New, improved, money back guarantee, and free trial sell toothpaste. Why not Google AI?
Third, Google — despite the alleged monopoly position — is struggling with the what’s next? Legal hassles, management practices, competition from nuisance companies like Amazon, competition for technical talent, hard to control costs — These are real issues at the Alphabet Google YouTube construct.
At end of a Silicon Valley day, some in Mountain View see Google as a one trick pony. It seems far fetched, but it looks as if Steve Ballmer may have been spot on with that one-trick pony metaphor. And there is Pinocchio’s nose.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2022
What about the Alphabet Google DeepMind Personnel Zeitgeist? The What?
April 5, 2022
Ah, has, do you remember that zeitgeist (a popular word among some college student embroiled in German philosophy)? Zeitgeist apparently means “to a form of supraindividual mind at work in the world and developed in the cultural world view which pervades the ideas, outlooks, and emotions of a specific culture in a particular historical period.” But you knew that, right? Supraindividual. Cultural world. Pervasive in a specific culture. Let’s accept this Psychology Dictionary definition and move forward, shall we?
“Google AI Unit’s High Ideals Are Tainted With Secrecy” captures the spirit of Alphabet Google DeepMind implicit systems and methods for personnel management. (You may have to pay to view this story. The collection of money befits the cowboy-hatted Big Dog who has an interest in the real news outputs of the Washington Post.) The main idea in the write up is less that Google is secretive and more that Google makes situational decisions and refused to talk about the thought process behind them. Surprise? Nope.
The write up states:
The former DeepMind employee wrote that she was threatened with disciplinary action if she spoke about her complaint with her manager or other colleagues. And the process of the company’s sending her notes and responding to her allegations took several months, during which time the person she reported was promoted and received a company award. DeepMind said in a statement that while it “could have communicated better throughout the grievance process,” a number of factors including the Covid pandemic and the availability of the parties involved contributed to delays.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda — perfect in grade school explanations about a failure, less impressive from a very large, super sophisticated outfit with smart software and wizards occupying hip workspaces. (What about those cubbies for people which allow a door to be closed? Privacy, please!)
The write up includes another of those “we don’t want to remember that” moments. This is the Mustafa Suleyman lateral arabesque. You can visit the real news source for the apparently interesting details. I must admit this incident is cut from the same fabric as the baby making in Google legal and the hooker/drug matter on a yacht called Escape. For some color around this matter, see this CBS report.
I loved this passage about one allegedly harassed Googler’s alleged interactions with co workers:
DeepMind said it is “digesting” its former employee’s open letter to understand what further action it should take. A bold and positive step would be to remove the confidentiality clauses in harassment settlements.
Consequences? Presumably authorities are letting the information work through their bureaucratic intestines. The good news: No attempted suicide, no heroin, no divorces and fatherless children, and no death — this time. Alphabet Google DeepMind want to benefit humanity. That’s great. But the Googley zeitgeist reveals the spirit of the firm in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2022
When Filtering Is Not Enough: Google Lobbies
April 4, 2022
Lawmakers are finally getting serious about curbing the prodigious power of large tech firms. Google, for one, is fighting back with a resource it has in abundance: money. MarketScreener briefly reports, “Google U.S. Lobbying Jumps 27% as Lawmakers Aim to Rein In Big Tech.” The increase brings the company’s 2021 lobbying expenditure to $9.6 million. Writers Diane Bartz and Paresh Dave observe:
“That’s far below the more than $20 million it spent in 2018 but more than the $7.53 million that went to lobbying in 2020. Google spent $2.2 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. Google’s lobbying spend dipped in 2020 as it restructured its government relations teams. The biggest technology companies, including Amazon.com Inc, Meta Platforms Inc’s Facebook and Apple Inc, have been under pressure in Congress over allegations they abused their outsized market power. A long list of bills have been introduced aimed at reining them in, but none have become law.”
Not yet, but one significant bill did recently pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will Google’s and other companies’ lobbyists succeed in stopping it and similar legislation? We are sure they will do their best to fulfill their oh-so-lucrative contracts.
Cynthia Murrell, April 4, 2022
Google: Nosing into US Government Consulting
April 4, 2022
I spotted an item on Reddit called “Google x Palantir.” Let’s assume there’s a smidgen of truth in the post. The factoid is in a comment about Google’s naming Stephen Elliott as its head of artificial intelligence solutions for the Google public sector unit. (What happened to the wizard once involved in this type of work? Oh, well.)
The interesting item for me is that Mr. Elliott will have a particular focus on “leveraging the Palantir Foundry platform.” I thought that outfits like Praetorian Digital (now Lexipol) handled this type of specialist consulting and engineering.
What strikes me as intriguing about this announcement is that Palantir Foundry will work on the Google Cloud. Amazon is likely to be an interested party in this type of Google initiative.
Amazon has sucked up a significant number of product-centric searches. Now the Google wants to get into the “make Palantir work” business.
Plus, Google will have an opportunity to demonstrate its people management expertise, its ability to attract and retain a diverse employee group, and its ability to put some pressure on the Amazon brachial nerve.
How will Microsoft respond?
The forthcoming Netflix mockumentary “Mr. Elliot Goes to Washington” will fill someone’s hunger for a reality thriller.
And what if the Reddit post is off base. Hey, mockumentaries can be winners. Remember “This Is Spinal Tap”?
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2022
The Art and Craft of Sending Document Copies to Legal Eagles: The Googley Method
April 1, 2022
Not joke. I read an allegedly accurate write up. It is called “Justice Department Accuses Google of Hiding Business Communications.” The idea is that in the US communications between a lawyer and his/her/them clients are privileged. I am not attorney, but the idea is to allow the lawyer to discuss sensitive issues with the his/her/them paying the bills.
The write up states:
The DOJ writes in its brief that Google teaches employees to request advice from counsel around sensitive business communications, thereby shielding documents from discovery in legal situations. Once counsel is involved, the company can treat the documents as protected under attorney-client privilege.
My view is that Google is just being “Googley.” When people who perceive themselves as entitled and really smart, those his/her/thems get advice from bright, often lesser individuals. The Googlers process the advice and when a suggestion measures up to Googzilla’s standards, the suggestion just sorta maybe becomes a way to handle certain issues.
Those who are Googley understand. Individuals who are not Googley — presumably like those in the Department of Justice — don’t understand the Googliness of the action.
Laws. Rules of the road. Those are often designed for the non Googley. The Googley must tolerate the others. But having the cash to throw legal cannon fodder in the path of the lesser lights who would do the Google harm is a useful tactic.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2022
Google: The Quantum Supremacy Turtling
April 1, 2022
Okay, Aprils’ Fool Day.
“Google Wants to Win the Quantum Computing Race by Being the Tortoise, Not the Hare” explains that the quantum supremacy “winner” which captured “time crystals” has a new angle:
it’s clear that Google — or, to be more accurate, its parent company Alphabet — has its sights set on being the world’s premiere quantum computing organization.
Machines? Nah, think cloud, gentle reader. Google has it together, but the non Googley may struggle to get the picture. The write up says:
Parent company Alphabet recently starbursted its SandboxAQ division into its own company, now a Google sibling. It’s unclear exactly what SandboxAQ intends to do now that it’s spun out, but it’s positioned as a quantum-and-AI-as-a-service company. We expect it’ll begin servicing business clients in partnership with Google in the very near-term.
But? The write up says:
We can safely assume we haven’t seen the last of Google’s quantum computing research breakthroughs, and that tells us we could very well be living in the moments right before the slow-and-steady tortoise starts to make up ground on the speedy hare.
Maybe turtle? An ectotherm like Googzilla? Eye glass frames with a relevant Google product review? So many questions.
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2022
Do Amazon and Google Shape Information to Advance Their Legislative Agenda?
March 31, 2022
The meeting in which it was decided to fund the Connected Commerce Council must have been fun: High fives, snorts of laughter, and derogatory comments perhaps? CNBC, a most interesting source of real 21st century news, published “How Google and Amazon Bankrolled a Grassroots’ Activist Group of Small Business Owners to Lobby Against Big Tech Oversight.” This is not a high school essay about “How to Make a Taco.” Nope. If true, the write up explains how two companies funded an information management campaign. I would describe this a weaponized propaganda, but I live in rural Kentucky and I am luck if I can remember where I left my bicycle. (Answer: in the garage.)
The write up explains:
The Connected Commerce Council, which pitches itself as a grassroots movement representing small business owners, is actually a well-financed advocacy group funded by tech heavy hitters Google and Amazon.
Interesting.
Here’s the newsy bit:
Lobbying watchdog group the Campaign for Accountability called 3C an “Astroturf” lobbying organization, thanks to the tech giants’ financial support. That’s a bit of Washington slang for a group that claims to represent grassroots entities, but in reality serves as an advocate for big industry. It’s a tactic used in Washington to push for specific legislative or regulatory goals using the sympathetic face of mom and pop organizations. The Campaign for Accountability described 3C in a 2019 report as an “Astroturf-style front group for the nation’s largest technology companies.”
Let’s think about the meeting or meetings which made it possible for two big outfits conclude that weaponizing content was a peachy keen idea. Some questions:
- When will the regulators emulate their European brothers, sisters, and thems and make meaningful steps to deal with cute weaponizing plays like this one?
- Why do executives sign off on such content manipulation — excuse me, I mean public interest messaging? Confidence in their ability to let loose flocks of legal eagles, a “hey, why not” attitude, or a belief in their own infallibility. (CNBC is not exactly Bellingcat, right?)
- Is it a disconnect between ethical behavior and high school science club insouciance?
These are good questions, and I don’t have answers.
The write up includes this remarkable quotation from a Connected Commerce big wheel:
In a statement to CNBC, Connected Commerce Council Executive Director Rob Retzlaff said all of the group’s members “affirmatively sign up – at events, online, or through a personal connection – and thousands have opened emails, responded to surveys, attended meetings and events, and communicated with legislators.” Retzlaff said, “I sincerely hope you do not (a) mischaracterize our efforts or the views of small businesses by suggesting we are an astroturf organization that puts words in people’s mouths, or (b) use outdated membership information to distract readers from legitimate concerns of small businesses and their engagement with policymakers.”
I like the “sincerely hope.”
Read the original. I think the article is a thought starter.
Oh, one more question:
Why didn’t Google just filter search results to add sauce to the Max Miller recreation of Genghis Khan’s fave little meat cakes? Low profile and the perfect explanation: The algorithm makes its own decisions.
Sure, just like the people in the meeting that concluded disinformation and propaganda to preserve the nifty cash machines that make astroturfing useful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2022
Google: Grade A Search Baloney
March 31, 2022
I have been involved in online information for more than 50 years. Yep, folks, That’s more than half a century. Those early days involved using big clunky computers to locate a word in a Latin corpus. Then there were the glory days of commercial online products like Business Dateline, the Health Reference Center, and others. The Internet was a source of online craziness that trumped the wackiness of Ev Brenner and his vision for petrochemical data. Against this richly colored tapestry of marketing fabrications, overpromising and under delivering, and the bizarre fantasies of the “old” Information Industry Association I read “Google Search Is Actually Getting Better at Giving You What You Need.”
The write up channels a marketing person at the Google and mixes the search wizard’s recycling of Google truisms with some pretty crazy assertions about finding information in 2022.
Let’s take a look at three points and then step back and put these online advertising charged assertions in a broader context; namely, of the outcomes of a a system which is a de facto information monopoly.
Here are the points I noted in the write up:
Big, baby, big.
The first idea is that Google processes a great deal of information. Plus, Google tests to tackle the challenge of “search quality.” By the way, what does “quality” mean? What happens when you combine big with quality, you get really good outputs from the Google system. Just try it. Do a search for pizza via Google on a mobile device. See what you get? Pizza information. Perfect. So big and quality means good. Do you buy that?
The second idea is that Google like little beavers or little Googzillas works to improve quality. The idea is that yesterday’s Google was not bad; it needs improvement. Many improvements mean that quality goes up. Okay, let’s try it. Say you want information about a loss of coolant accident. You know. Chernobyl, Fukashima, et al. Type in loca and you get Shakira’s video. Type in “nuclear loca” and you get links to a loss of coolant accident. Type in site:nrc.gov loca and you get results specific to a loss of coolant incident. Note what’s needed to get Google to produce something about loss of coolant accident. The user must specify a context; otherwise, Google delivers lowest common denominator results. One can use Google Dorks to work about the Shakira problem, but let’s face it, very few people are into Google Dorks. (I include them in my OSINT lecture at the National Cyber Crime Conference in April 2022, but I know from experience that not even trained investigators are into Google Dorks.)
The third idea is that Google is embracing artificial intelligence. That makes sense because there are not enough people to process today’s flows of information in the old fashioned subject matter expert way. One must reduce costs in order to deliver “quality.” Does that seem an unusual pairing of improvements and search results? Think about it, please.
Now let’s step back. Here are some observations I jotted on a 4×6 notecard:
- Google uses people looking for online information to generate revenue from ads. That which produces more ad revenue is valued. The “quality” is a repurposing of a useful concept to the need to generate revenue. Shakira is the correct result for the “loca” query. That’s quality.
- The notion of testing is interesting. What’s the objective? The answer is generating revenue. Thus, the notion of testing is little more than steering or tuning search results to generate more revenue. The adjustments operate on several levels: Shaping understanding via filtering and producing revenue from search results. Simple, just not exactly what a user of an ad supported system thinks about when running a query for pizza.
- Smart software is the number one way for Google to [a] reduce costs, [b] deflect legal challenges to its search result shaping with the statement “The algorithm does, not a human”; and [c] create the illusion that Google search results are really smart. Use Google and you will be smarter too.
Believe these assertions? You’re the ideal Google user. Have doubts? You are not Googley. Don’t apply for a job at the Google and for heaven’s sake, don’t expect the Google outputs to be objective, just accept that some information is unfindable by design.
Google Dorks exist for a reason? Google has made finding relevant information more difficult than at any time in my professional career. And every year, the Google system becomes more detached from what most people believe fuels Google’s responses to what Google users need.
Yep, need. Sell ads. Reduce costs. Generate feedback into the system from user’s who have biases. Why are government agencies pushing back on outfits like Google? The quest for qualilty? Nope. The pushback reflects a growing awareness of disinformation, manipulation, and behavior that stifles options in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2022
TikTok: Search and Advertising
March 29, 2022
If life were not tricky enough for Amazon, Facebook, and Google, excitement is racing down the information highway. I read “TikTok Search Ads Tool Is Being Tested Out.” I learned:
This week, the famous short video application began beta testing for TikTok search ads in search results, allowing marketers to reach the audience utilizing the keywords they use.
Yep, a test, complete with sponsored listings at the top of the search result page.
Will this have an impact on most adults over the age of 65? The answer in my opinion, “Is not right away, but down the road, oh, baby, yes.”
Let’s think about the Big Boys:
- Amazon gets many clicks from its product search. The Google once dominated this function, but the Bezos bulldozer has been grinding away.
- Facebook or as I like to call it “zuckbook.” The combined social empire of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp has quite a bit of product information. Don’t you follow Soph Mosca’s fashion snaps on Instagram? Will TikTok search offer a better experience with search, ads, and those nifty videos? Yep.
- And Google. Now the GOOG faces competition for product search ads from the China linked TikTok. How will the company respond? Publish a book on managing a diverse work force or put out a news release about quantum supremacy.
The write up explains that the ads, the search angle, and the experience is in beta. Will TikTok sell ads? Okay, let me think. Wow. Tough question. My answer, “Does President Gi take an interest in the Internet?”
The write up includes a link to a Twitter post which shows the beta format. You can view it at this link.
I want to point out that TikTok is a useful source of open source intelligence, captures information of interest to those who want to pinpoint susceptible individuals, and generates high value data about users interested in a specific type of content and the creators of that content.
Now TikTok will be on the agenda of meetings at three of the world’s most loved companies. Yep, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Who loves these outfits the most? Advertisers!
Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2022
Google: Managing with Flair
March 24, 2022
I had forgotten there was a Google employee survey. I read “Googlegeist Survey Reveals That Google Workers Are Increasingly Unhappy about Compensation, Promotion, and More.” Unhappy employees suggest that the Google zeitgeist is out of joint if the information in the write up is accurate.
I noted this passage:
In the latest Googlegeist or the annual Google survey, the company noticed that there was a growing trend of “increasingly unhappy” workers over compensation and other key issues.
How could those admitted to the Walt Disney Wonderland of technology and doing good be unhappy? How could the senior managers craft an artificial environment at odds with the needs of humanoids?
Is there a silver lining to the clouds hanging over the Google? Yes. I learned:
The survey which took place two months ago, yielded the most desirable results when it comes to advertisements, cloud, and searches. Moreover, the highest score came from the values and mission of the company. However, it should be noted that the lowest remark tackled the context of execution and compensation on the part of the labor force.
And how did the management of the firm respond? According to the write up:
Addressing the survey results is considered to be “one of the most important ways” for evaluation, as CEO Sundar Pichai said during an announcement via email. This would help the company assess the willingness and desirability of the workers to work inside the firm.
There you go. Management insight. Be happy or begone.
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
